Talk:Corona Borealis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, the review will be completed in a day or two and I declare my participation in WikiCup. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

Talking about cites, all looks good and well reliable with a few doubt which I have. Makemson 1941 and Squire, C. (2000) do not point anywhere and will be good with online cites, if possible. Some refs need access-date and some needs a trim. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all the all cite webs have accessdates, others do not need them. Squire and Makemson should click down to the book refs now. I don't understand that web check link - if I click on them, they work.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section uses a good amount of pronouns which could be replaces by nouns or better replacements. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed one pronoun to "Corona Borealis" - I worry if I change another it will sound too repetitive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern references section requires a slight expansion. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any other modern references but expanded the story a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More footnotes/cites are expected in infobox. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the infobox is proving difficult to insert references in...I will see which ones are ok. Actually none of the Featured Article constellations have more footnotes in the infobox. I guess we can look at it as a Lead, with the references in the body of the text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the 48 constellation mentioned in Almagest by Claudius Ptolemy. This could be explained in the history section. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good catch - added to body of text now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result

The article passed the GA review and is left with two redlinks, owing to their significance as future articles. The article is now satisfying the criteria for the GA-status and made it go. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 07:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx +++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]